Critically analyse and compare Plato and Aristotle’s concept of the body and soul PDF

Preview

Summary

Plato - aristotle - the soul ...

Description

Critically analyse and compare Plato and Aristotle’s concept of the body and soul. The main fundamental difference between what Plato and Aristotle thought about the relationship between the body and soul is that Plato claimed the Soul was immortal; it existed before the body and its here when the body dies. Plato thought this to be true because of his theory of forms. Plato said we had such ideas as a ‘perfect circle,’ or a ‘perfect chair,’ not because we have seen them before or they had been described to us, but the image was already known to us through the realm of the forms. From this, Plato was able to arrive at the conclusion that our soul had lived previously in the realm of the forms and as we as humans experienced things, it would unlock memories from that realm our souls lived in. Therefore our mind recognises objects as a ‘circle,’ or ‘chair’ but not a perfect a ‘circle,’ or ‘chair,’ because only the forms we remember are perfect as in the material world things change, allowing for imperfections. Aristotle disagreed with Plato about dualistic approach. His monist idea was that the soul was a part of the body, it was made with the body, the body supported it and when the body died there was nothing to support the soul so it died too. This has often been described with the analogy of a wax stamp, symbolising that they are impossible to separate. Aristotle thought more along the lines of a living being is a composite whole- the body is the matter and the soul is its form. The form to Aristotle is considered to be many things: sensation; movement; and reproduction. The soul is affected by what the living thing is. An animal for example has the ability to move, have feelings, and make decisions for themselves unlike plants, which are in a constant vegetative state. However Aristotle does agree with Plato in terms of believing that something does survive after death. It’s not the soul itself, as Plato states but it’s the reason of the living thing or object. The reason is the specific qualities that a person or object has. Aristotle wrote, “Suppose then that eye were an animal-sight would have been its soul… when seeing is removed the eye is no longer an eye, except in name- its no more a real eye than of a statue or of a painted figure.” Here he is saying that the quality of an eye is to see, without that quality the eye can no longer be an eye. We are humans because we have qualities which make our soul, without those qualities we would not be individual and thus not serve our purpose. Plato did mention the concept of form in his writings, but in terms of it being the past life of the soul. As well as this Plato also mentioned form as part of the soul, which is something Aristotle does also. Plato said, “The soul is divided into three different parts, roughly translated as reason, emotion and desire.” But Plato became less sure about which parts of the Soul are immortal. Considering Plato taught Aristotle, this indecision might have influenced Aristotle as a philosopher, there is certainly logic and similarity between this uncertain thought of a separate immortal soul, and Aristotle’s thought of form being immortal and the soul not. Plato tells us that the human person has different elements: the physical body; the

mind; and the immortal Soul. Aristotle totally disagrees with this, he wrote: “We can totally dismiss as wholly unnecessary the question whether the Body and Soul are one: it is meaningless as to ask whether the wax and the shape given to it are one.” The Soul and Body as Plato thought aren’t two separate substances, but are different parts of the same object. Plato doesn’t provide any convincing argument to back up his theory to say there is an existence of forms that our Soul exists in before/after the life of the Body. It is logical to think that there must be a perfect circle or a perfect chair so that we may understand the world and objects around us, but it still does not explain why Plato thought there would be a different existence for these forms outside this material World. Aristotle criticises Plato on his belief in the world of forms, when he has no evidence for any other world outside this one. “The particular nature of any Soul will depend on the living thing that it is.” This line basically says that the living object has an effect on the Soul. For example if a human is unhappy, he/she will have an unhappy Soul. To me this seems a logical philosophy of the Soul, and how it can be affected by the living thing that it was part of. According with Plato’s philosophy I believe that after the Body is dead and the soul is released, but I believe the Soul keeps the characteristics of the Body it belonged to and doesn’t die with the Body. But I disagree with Plato and I don’t think that the spirit goes to the realm of forms. Even though there two philosophers have many different ideas on the Soul’s relationship with the Body, they do have many points of agreement. Plato taught Aristotle, and in many points it is clear to see how Plato influenced him in many ways, even in his indecision in the purpose of the soul. Aristotle gets himself confused when it comes down to the minor points of his Philosophy, but both philosophers had their downfalls and their triumphs....